Speaking personally, it's about the ability to crop in, generally for small or flying birds. For many people, a longer lens isn't an option (either for cost reasons where people are limited to something like the 100-500, or in my case because I already have a 600/4 with extenders).
Interesting, thanks. You shoot sports professionally? I guess I had assumed that professionals usually were able to get close enough to not have to "crop the shit" (LOL) out of files. What sports do you shoot?
Yeah, Canon has such a long track record of poor sales and poor representation at major events covered by the media, so your comment really makes a lot of sense.
Sony has set the bar high. The A1 does not compromise in FPS, MP or AF. Canon needs the be in the game if it wants to expand market share. The days of flagship cameras with 20 MP is over. The market has moved on. Some people will be quite satisfied owning the R6 but 45 MP makes the R5 much more versatile. JMHO and I was only wrong 4 times yesterday!
I just told you a reason it is not over yet. Canon also does not think it is over. You seem to think only your wants and needs matter. If I want something similar to the A1 I have the R5. Personally I was hoping for 30mp, at 24 I am going to stick with my 1dx3. The camera will probably sell just fine in spite of you proclaiming it is over. The market will decide if it is over.
Some reasons from Canon Europe:
Exactly, there exists flagships in the market at that price. This is not a "personal wish". It is a market driven price point
I have the R5 and it has AF issues and some features missing that a "1 series" camera quite likely will not have. It has a lot and I'm not griping by any means but what many of us have said repeatedly is that we want a "1 series" camera with higher MPs. Let's have "1series" for both of us, the low MP guys and the high MP guys or build it so that you can choose "in camera". What makes you think the R1 will be high MPs? I'm not so sure.
That’s what they are because the metadata says so. Canon almost always has a bit more resolution than that in their sensors and then crop to that nice even number. This gives them a little buffer room for interpolation, etc. you can see this with raw files by using exiftool to read the raw metadata in the file or dcraw to extract the full sensor readout. All of their sensors have at least 16-32 extra pixels on each side of the image that gets cropped out.
Raw only means it has not been conformed to a colorspace. It also generally means that it hasn’t been demosaiced, but that is not a requirement. They can easily do what they want with the raw data (resize it, demosaic it, etc) and it’s still raw until it’s been conformed to a colorspace. Unless you’re a purist that says raw is untouched raw sensor samples, raw doesn’t actually mean much.
